From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Goaziou Subject: Re: [ANN] Merge export-block type within special-block Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 09:26:55 +0200 Message-ID: <87r3yww6gw.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> References: <87y4vf0ygz.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87oav0vmv1.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87r3ywl13l.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51341) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XY8sP-0008Sm-UR for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 03:26:48 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XY8sF-0003Kw-Pi for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 03:26:37 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87r3ywl13l.fsf@gmail.com> (Aaron Ecay's message of "Sun, 28 Sep 2014 02:18:22 -0400") List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: KDr2 Cc: Bastien Guerry , Org Mode List Hello, Aaron Ecay writes: > I have a hunch that this is backwards. It seems like the convention > has been to allow arbitrary special blocks in org files. Sticking to > what I know best, these create arbitrarily-named environments in Latex. > Export blocks seem like the special case (e.g. the number of types is > constrained by the available export modules), and so they should have > to bear special marking. Historically (i.e. pre-8.0), so-called export blocks were a core feature, whereas special blocks were defined in an optional library (IIRC "org-special-blocks.el"). That explains why my proposal was to optionally activate special blocks and not the other way round. We can instead use #+begin_latex :raw t ... #+end_latex to optionally activate an export block instead of a special block. I don't mind either way. > What if you used the convention that all export blocks had the form > #+begin_export_latex, #+begin_export_html, etc.? This should be > unambiguous to parse. (It=E2=80=99s possible to bikeshed about the name,= of > course: perhaps #+begin_literal_latex etc.) One drawback, however, is that is prevents any special block name from starting with "export" (or any post-bikeshedding name that could be issued). Regards, --=20 Nicolas Goaziou